Click image to order

Richard Parncutt: Musicology Prof. Changes His Tune For Christmas

After exposure of his death-penalty dissertation on several sceptical blogs yesterday, Prof. Richard Parncutt took down and rewrote the page on the University of Graz website. I have reproduced his reconsidered Christmas message to the climate debate below. He makes much of his membership of human rights organisation Amnesty International. (I’ve been a member in the past too). Gone is the link to DeSmogBlog’s ‘little list’ of deniers. Prof. Parncutt now acknowledges there are areas in which he is no expert. So what’s left? Has he recognised the logical and ethical fallacies in his original? Does he recognise that advocating the killing of people for the views they hold is itself a crime in many civilised countries? Has he ever heard the advice “When in a hole – stop digging” ?

I have been a member and financial supporter of Amnesty International Austria since 1998. Previously, I was a member and financial supporter of Amnesty in the UK from 1994 to 1998. Like Amnesty I have consistently opposed the death penalty in every case, and this is still my opinion.

In discussions about the death penalty, it is important to acknowledge that it may be inconsistent to completely reject the death penalty in all cases. Imagine a situation where one person or a small group is in a position to kill millions of people. Imagine that there is also clear evidence that they intend to do so. Murder of that person or that small group could be justified on the grounds that it would save the lives of a large number of people with a high probability.

If the government of a country was somehow responsible for that murder, it could be considered a justified act that is related to the death penalty. Of course there is a big difference: the death penalty is always applied after a serious crime has been committed. In this case we are talking about preventing a serious crime.

This example is not completely imaginary. In the near future it is possible that terrorists will get hold of weapons of mass destruction. If there was strong evidence to believe that those terrorists were able to use those weapons to kill millions of people, and intended to do so, a government could be justified in killing them. This is a very difficult issue for pacificists like myself to talk about. But to avoid the issue is not an option either.

Another non-imaginary example is global warming. According to mainstream scientific opinion, global warming is happening already, and if things do not change radically in the coming decades, it will indirectly kill hundreds of millions of people later this century.

Many people believe either (i) that global warming is not happening, (ii) that the problem is much less serious than predicted, or (iii) that the effect is natural – not a product of human activities (especially CO2 emissions). Since scientists have been known to be wrong in the past, it is important first to acknowledge that the skeptics might be right. Moreover, they have the same rights as everyone else to express their opinions and arguments. Skepticism is an important part of science.

It is also important to acknowledge that the discussion about the existence or nature of global warming is not an abstract argument. It is not merely about who is right or who is wrong. The discussion has enormous implications. If mainstream scientific predictions are correct, global warming will seriously affect billions of people, and hundreds of millions could die as a result.

Let us assume for the purpose of argument that the global warming skeptics are right with a probability of 90%. That is a very generous assumption, if we consider that hundreds of highly qualified, internationally leading scientists have devoted their lives to this problem, and in general disagree. According to this assumption, the scientists are right with a probability of 10%. Let us also assume that 10 million lives are at risk as a result of global warming in coming decades, which is also a very conservative estimate. In this case denying the existence of global warming – in a way that slows down current attempts to stop it – is directly risking the lives of one million people (10% of 10 million).

I am not saying the skeptics are wrong. I am talking on a different level. All participants in this debate, including the global warming skeptics, acknowledge that there are significant uncertainties. We are not completely sure whether we are risking these future lives or not. And as long as we are unsure, global warming skepticism, when coupled with attempts to stop measures to stop global warming, should be considered a crime. We have no right to gamble with the lives of millions of people.

To protect future generations, our legal systems urgently need extension. They should include measures to protect future generations. Exactly what penalties should be applied in what situation is a question that is beyond my expertise. I have no expertise in international law or criminal law. But I can imagine that it might be legitimate to consider the question of the death penalty in such discussions – at least as an extreme with which other more moderate penalties can be compared. It might also be interesting to consider the power of different kinds of penalties as deterrents. The primary aim should not be to punish a small number of individuals (in the sense of exacting revenge). The primarily aim should be to prevent serious consequences for a very large number.

In closing, let me repeat that I am in general opposed to the death penalty in every case. I am also very concerned that global warming is threatening the quality of life of billions of future people, and the lives of hundreds of millions. I often worry about this problem and I wish I had a good solution. For me, the discussion about global warming is not an abstract discussion about how much snow there will be when I want to go skiing in Austria, or how long heat waves will last when I am with my family in Australia. It is a matter of life and death, for millions of people. We should have the courage to treat it as such.

The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. _____________________________________________________________________________

But the actions being taken to alleviate the supposed effects of AGW are also putting people in peril. Reducing carbon emissions entails increasing energy costs; leading to fuel poverty, unemployment and destitution. Deaths will result – who knows how many. Changes to the legal system could catch alarmists just as easily as deniers. And as long as we are unsure, global warming alarmism, when coupled with attempts to stop global warming, should be considered a crime.

Not very bright… He teaches??? Of course in the hypothetical case it wouldn’t be necessary to kill the person he disagrees with – the person – say Anthony Watt – could just be locked up for life for thought crimes.

This brings to mind the images of the pre-cogs floating in a shallow pool of goo in the movie Minority Report. The pre-cogs du jour are the climate alarmists.

Maybe Josh could put together a cartoon with Mann, Trenberth and Hansen as the climate CACC-cogs, who already know about futurecrimes caused by today’s skeptics who think CACC is a load, swirling in the bowl.

Leftist always try to rationalize why killing millions to save millions is right in their left mind.

Dear Professor (a term I am certain does not apply to you). Please stop digging, step in the hole, and patiently wait for another unpredictable 15 years of weather to occur. Let us see if the current trend of no warming for the past 16 years continues. As someone like you and so against the death penalty lets at least wait a little while longer before you/world governments decide it is time to purge millions if not a billion skeptics to save an equal number of sheepeople.

“Imagine a situation where one person or a small group is in a position to kill millions of people. Imagine that there is also clear evidence that they intend to do so. Murder of that person or that small group could be justified on the grounds that it would save the lives of a large number of people with a high probability.”
Is he saying the abortion-clinic bombers and those who murder abortionists are justified? That is their reasoning, and it is still not right. The abortionist, furtermore, is intentionally killing people who already exist, not just future generations.

I am surprised that the esteemed Professor seems to have little understanding of of how to talk about probability – e.g. he says ‘Let us assume for the purpose of argument that the global warming skeptics are right with a probability of 90%. … According to this assumption, the scientists are right with a probability of 10%. Let us also assume that 10 million lives are at risk as a result of global warming in coming decades, which is also a very conservative estimate. In this case denying the existence of global warming – in a way that slows down current attempts to stop it – is directly risking the lives of one million people (10% of 10 million)’!
I pity his students if they have to listen to this kind of contorted and hopelessly fallacious argument.

What he seems to be seeking is some way of applying the Precautionary Principle to the climate debate and proposing deadly sanctions on those who breach it. But the PP is probably (96%) the most obtuse and dangerous guideline for human action.

I have been a member and financial supporter of Amnesty International Austria since 1998. Previously, I was a member and financial supporter of Amnesty in the UK from 1994 to 1998. Like Amnesty I have consistently opposed the death penalty in every case, and this is still my opinion.

** Well done, admirable but this gives you no moral authority what so ever. I too have done as much.

.
In discussions about the death penalty, it is important to acknowledge that it may be inconsistent to completely reject the death penalty in all cases. Imagine a situation where one person or a small group is in a position to kill millions of people. Imagine that there is also clear evidence that they intend to do so. Murder of that person or that small group could be justified on the grounds that it would save the lives of a large number of people with a high probability.

** This only stand up if justice, based on provable facts, is seen to be done – all other cases tend towards anarchy.

.
If the government of a country was somehow responsible for that murder, it could be considered a justified act that is related to the death penalty. Of course there is a big difference: the death penalty is always applied after a serious crime has been committed. In this case we are talking about preventing a serious crime.

** This is a specious argument predicated on Governments being good. History teaches that this is often not true.

This example is not completely imaginary. In the near future it is possible that terrorists will get hold of weapons of mass destruction. If there was strong evidence to believe that those terrorists were able to use those weapons to kill millions of people, and intended to do so, a government could be justified in killing them. This is a very difficult issue for pacifists like myself to talk about. But to avoid the issue is not an option either.

** Again an argument that is based on government being good – many government already hold weapon of mass destruction and some have used them. The terrorist, or freedom fighter, may (or may not) consider getting hold and using such weapons – at what point can anyone justify pre-emptive murderous action?

.
Another non-imaginary example is global warming. According to mainstream scientific opinion, global warming is happening already, and if things do not change radically in the coming decades, it will indirectly kill hundreds of millions of people later this century.

** Human induced global warming is NOT a proven fact. Global warming skeptic is equivalent to a group of terrorist with weapons of mass destruction? Do you truly understand what you are saying? This planet has been through many phases of warm and cold periods all entirely natural.

.
Many people believe either (i) that global warming is not happening, (ii) that the problem is much less serious than predicted, or (iii) that the effect is natural – not a product of human activities (especially CO2 emissions). Since scientists have been known to be wrong in the past, it is important first to acknowledge that the skeptics might be right. Moreover, they have the same rights as everyone else to express their opinions and arguments. Skepticism is an important part of science.

** This not about belief, it’s about provable facts. There is very poor data to show that the current warming is an effect, or even affected by humankind’s influence on the planet. Scientist are not in agreement over the causes or otherwise of man’s influence on climate.

.
It is also important to acknowledge that the discussion about the existence or nature of global warming is not an abstract argument. It is not merely about who is right or who is wrong. The discussion has enormous implications. If mainstream scientific predictions are correct, global warming will seriously affect billions of people, and hundreds of millions could die as a result.

** This is entirely wrong! It is about right and wrong, about greed and power. There are many skeptical scientists. But your logic has it that those who demand more reliable evidence for global warming should be viewed in the same light as a terrorist with weapons of mass destruction. If the wrong decision is made, based on an unproven hypothesis by some scientists, we are damned to waste all we have gained in the last 300 years, and be back to the dark ages and feudalism.

.
Let us assume for the purpose of argument that the global warming skeptics are right with a probability of 90%. That is a very generous assumption, if we consider that hundreds of highly qualified, internationally leading scientists have devoted their lives to this problem, and in general disagree. According to this assumption, the scientists are right with a probability of 10%. Let us also assume that 10 million lives are at risk as a result of global warming in coming decades, which is also a very conservative estimate. In this case denying the existence of global warming – in a way that slows down current attempts to stop it – is directly risking the lives of one million people (10% of 10 million).

** Your are wrong in logic and assumption. No amount of number of scientists’ agreement make a reality. Things are what they are without scientific approval. Your assumption of 10 million at risk has no validity. Your assumption that there is a man-made method of slowing global warming is specious. There is no method.

.
I am not saying the skeptics are wrong. I am talking on a different level. All participants in this debate, including the global warming skeptics, acknowledge that there are significant uncertainties. We are not completely sure whether we are risking these future lives or not. And as long as we are unsure, global warming skepticism, when coupled with attempts to stop measures to stop global warming, should be considered a crime. We have no right to gamble with the lives of millions of people.

** I am say you are wrong. Your argument is incoherent and assumes that the future is known. Natural disasters happen, we can taken precautionary measures against those that are based on facts. You are saying we have to take action that will make the overall (worldwide) human condition worse in order to protect ourselves against a hypothetical threat. (Human induced global warming is NOT proved it is still a hypothesis).

.
To protect future generations, our legal systems urgently need extension. They should include measures to protect future generations. Exactly what penalties should be applied in what situation is a question that is beyond my expertise. I have no expertise in international law or criminal law. But I can imagine that it might be legitimate to consider the question of the death penalty in such discussions – at least as an extreme with which other more moderate penalties can be compared. It might also be interesting to consider the power of different kinds of penalties as deterrents. The primary aim should not be to punish a small number of individuals (in the sense of exacting revenge). The primarily aim should be to prevent serious consequences for a very large number.

** To protect future generation we must criminalise those who do not believe in the theory of human induce global warming. What message does that give our future generations?

In closing, let me repeat that I am in general opposed to the death penalty in every case. I am also very concerned that global warming is threatening the quality of life of billions of future people, and the lives of hundreds of millions. I often worry about this problem and I wish I had a good solution. For me, the discussion about global warming is not an abstract discussion about how much snow there will be when I want to go skiing in Austria, or how long heat waves will last when I am with my family in Australia. It is a matter of life and death, for millions of people. We should have the courage to treat it as such.

** I am very hearten to know you are against the death penalty in general. I am not.
I too am very concerned at the political and financial outcomes of the global warming hysteria. From your detailed response it is obvious that proper basic scientific education is required in many countries. The opinions expressed are my personal opinions. ________________________________________

If I were Amnesty International I’d cut him a cheque to pay him back whatever he’s contributed, and make sure he never darkened their name again. His views are precisely what AI is about guarding against.

I can absolutely guarantee that billions are going to die Herr Parncutt. Not many people survive very long past the age of 100, as you may have noticed, so unfortunately there will be a time when you and I both will be members of this horrendous death toll. And all those billions are going to die whether or not there is any global warming. So what are you on about? Really?

To avoid the US fiscal cliff, the rich will have to pay more tax (16 November). The democratically elected US president has a mandate, but Congress, which is dominated by millionaires, will try to stop him. This is corruption at the highest level. Democracy? You must be joking. Off with their heads? Today, we prefer to avoid violence, although millions are dying of hunger and preventable disease worldwide, killed indirectly by the selfishness of rich politicians.
Richard Parncutt
Graz, Austria

====================================================
Nice to see the spots on this cat hadn’t changed. Still the same deranged ideas.

Sorry, Dr. Parncutt. Your parnographic novel is not a very good retraction. Still gloomy. Still smarmy. Still dripping with unjustified arrogance. When many celebrate Christmas, you bemoan future people threatened by a non-predictable threat. What makes you so sure? Shame on you.

Thank goodness you saved it, we were running around like headless chickens yesterday looking for a cache. Everyone should note, inciting death for anyone in any way is assumed to be a serious crime much the same as the crime they are promoting itself. As such, there is no need to wait for a lunatic to take their advice and carry out such a punishment directly (you must take your audience as they are, including the mentally ill) but a crime as soon as the words are published. I would send this to his local police and let them make their minds up, incitement to murder is pretty much at the top there next to treason.

Here in the US his speech is protected under the First Amendment, as it should be – all the better to expose him as a fool and a clown. Of course, his argument is the same argument tyrants have always used to shut others up – “it’s too important an issue to debate and I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG SO YOU NEED TO DIE IF YOU DON”T SHUT UP”.

On the other hand, he’s actually suggesting judicial murder of people for voicing their opinions – outside the US, isn’t that some kind of actionable offense? I don’t think it should be, but I don’t write the laws.

There’s always the possibility that his deranged threats to ‘deniers’ weren’t really heartfelt, but who knows how many millions of like-minded ill-tempered spawn-bots will be shouting ‘DEATH TO DENIERS’ tomorrow? He puts the threat out just long enough to be ‘absorbed’, then pulls it in an attempt to sanitize, all the while his doctrine of death has been accepted by the green/red crowd. Mission accomplished.

So does the reverse apply if nature shows us that there is No warmth in the pipe line and temperatures drop 4 degrees or below the other side of Zero trend by about the 2 degree threshold they have chosen for a warming limit, then do we put all of the alarmists names on the list instead?

I am for more honest access to the grants for looking for the actual causes that drive climate, and real raw data archives open to the public. The truth will surface by itself when real scientific methods are applied.

So Parncutt is a member of AI is he. The way he thinks reminded me of someone, and now I know who.

One of the worst violators of human rights we had the misfortune to be involved with was a prominent member of AI.

So we left the UK, went to live for a while in an allegedly stone age country (that happened to have FOI legislation), then made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. That’s what it took to beat the guy. We kept our side of the bargain (not exposing him) but it looks like he left AI shortly afterwards.

[Simon]
“His views are precisely what AI is about guarding against.”
Hmmm …

[Tom0]
“AI have had an very unpleasant dose of Greenie alarmist AGW entryism.”
I wasn’t aware of this, but it doesn’t surprise me.

“Amnesty International have had an very unpleasant dose of Greenie alarmist AGW entryism – over 18 months ago I received mailshots which were A) Unsolicited B) Riddled with AGW alarmist boiler plate. I investigated further – subsequently cancelling my regular contribution in disgust.”

…….

Same here! When I received a load of Green guff from Amnesty last year I cancelled, too. When they phoned me to find out why I told them they should lay off the green propaganda and not assume that people who support Amnesty are intellectually deficient. It is common, alas, for charity organisers to assume that if you support one good cause you will support another and probably correct in many cases.

I wonder if this pooling of mailshots/recruitment efforts with Greenpeace has backfired on Amnesty? It could be that receipt of the Amnesty/Greenpeace mailshot actually provoked Prof Parncutt’s pseudo-intellectual rant against sceptics. In which case it has done Amnesty’s cause some harm.

I don’t know whether you are aware but charities recruit their Directors and staff from a rather limited pool of personnel in the Charity/NGO sector. 10 years at Amnesty followed by 10 years at Save the Children followed by 10 years at the FPA ending up with 10 years at Greenpeace is a pretty normal career trajectory for a socially committed advocacy-inclined Individual. They often end up in the House of Lords!

Professor Richard Parncutt, at the Centre for Systematic Musicology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Graz still seems to be straying far beyond his area of competence. He seems to be seriously mentally disturbed and in need of psychological treatment before he becomes a danger to himself and others.

I have become convinced that criminality, sociopathy and psychopathy, along with various subgenres of more minor delusional activities, are arbitrarily defined and moveable aspects of “normal” human behaviour. We see those with such traits as dangerous and/or “nuts” only when the expressions of their beliefs comes to hurt the interests of a large enough portion of the populace. Until then, they are just passionate, if somewhat extreme.

The greatest question we ask is “Have you heard yourself talking?” We are dumbfounded that someone could hold true such things clearly untenable from observation or practical application. But he can, in part because what we see as brick walls or deep chasms he sees as minor obstacles to climb or jump.

Neither Harold Camping nor the Reverend Jim Jones would have flinched is you asked them to listen to themselves critically. The difference with them and Parncutt is that they put their beliefs into action.

The criminal, the sociopathic, the delusional are only recognized and socially isolated for their view of humanity when they act upon what they think. The professor is brilliant but quirky until he actually builds his gas chamber – and, even then, he really has to put someone in it to be dealt with. Until that point, his focus and energy can put him into the Departmental Chair and on the righthand side of the President.

You are only crazy to think a man can fly with bird feathers glued to his arms when you jump off a roof with bird feathers glued to your arms. And you are only evil when you have these thoughts but get someone else to jump from the roof with bird feathers glued to his arms. Until then you are the one at the office party with wild ideas.

To propose – albeit with caveats – is the first step towards either craziness or evil. Let’s hope Parncutt has been convinced, at a minimum, to keep his ideas inside his large and active mind.

As several above have pointed out, the ‘prevention’ efforts contemplated must be taken into account. It is a peculiar blind spot of those, like the professor, who argue from a version of the Precautionary Principle that they refuse/decline to take into account the nearly certain costs and consequences of applying their preventative measures. As most succinctly expressed in an analogy to insurance, ‘if the premium exceeds the cost of the event being insured against, don’t purchase the policy’.

News from WUWT, there has been a formal university response, nicely done including going to the trouble of bi-lingual, complete withdrawal and formal apology. There is obviously now high profile knowledge at Graz.

I recommend this grubby matter is dropped, serves little purpose and venting looks bad in history. Any writing will tend to remain for a long time.
–Tim

The Professor makes great play of his Membership of and support for Amnesty International, almost using it as a Fig Leaf to add air of respectability to his odious position. Has anyone ever been expelled from Amnesty International ?

It was predicted that communist/marxist/leftists ideology would kill millions of people, and the rest traumatised for life. The prediction turned out to be wrong in the sense that not millions but hundreds of millions were killed, and entire nations traumatised.

Scientifically speaking, the outcome was correctly predicted. Thus according to Parncutt, all Leftists/marxists/ communists should be executed.

Pacifist my ass! He starts by trotting out the ultimate argument of statists who know they’re full of shit but are so morally superior to mere mortals that whatever they do is OK. “I can’t win the debate, so I’ll just kill everybody who disagrees with me.” Yes sir! This asshole would have made a great NAZI. (And before the usual types get their knickers in a twist because we mustn’t ever compare anybody to the NAZIs any more, he would also have fit right in to the upper echelons of the NKVD, the eliminating-anyone-who-disagrees arm of old Joe Stalin, the 1930s’ other favourite megalomaniac and mass-murderer.) The thing he doesn’t get is that anyone who makes threats against the lives of others is telling everybody that he doesn’t care to deal with people as one human equal to another because he does not recognize the natural, individual right to one’s own life. He is publically declaring himself a mortal threat to anyone he meets, thus giving them permission to protect their own lives by putting a stop to his ability to threaten them by whatever means seems to them to be most effective at the time. If you’re going to relate to other people like a hyena to its prey, then better be prepared for them to relate to you like meeting a hyena in the bush. Of course he’s counting on the likelihood that we’re all too polite to treat him as he deserves.

In the absence of statistically significant global warming for sixteen years, it seems we lack a reason to punish anyone for anything, except possibly for pointing out that climate change is constant and natural.